EVE General Discussion

The -exact- result of this, will be that the existing Sov holder, wil anchor a deadstick on every single moon in every single region they own, to stop neutrals having a deadstick to activate on top of a freshly spawned dyspro moon. Your idea just made Sov holding worse than pre-dominion days with tower spam, and it would make initial region control setup more expensive than it ever has been, and it will add yet another administration layer to running a Sov holder (ie scheduled moon scanning, shifting of operational non goo towers away from fresh spawns, etc).

To me it all sounds like Malcanis's law playing out at alliance scale (ie easier for extant large entities to deal with, than new entities), and therefore actually producing a result opposite to your intention.

It is actually to spur further discussion and debate. But you actually help prove my point. Breaking these blocks up into multiple alliances adds further risk and chance for these groups to splinter and form new smaller manageable blocs. More politics in managing organizations that are split off from you rather than with you.

In regards to the alliance comment I have just joined AAA after a break from the game. My comments in no way reflect AAA thoughts. I am still getting to know more about the alliance, their history etc..

I was hoping on my return the coalition aspects and rental stuff would've changed and perhaps 0.0 would've been more interesting and conflict driven as it was when I first started playing and used to get my friends to play showing them the influence map and the political intrigue / ultimate pvp experience. Now its not that great to show off when huge chunks of space are owned by a few groups and you either are part of them, pay them rent or in empire space.

Playing eve for so long I would argue that it wasn't CCP's intention for 0.0 to turn out this way and perhaps their direction with "going beyond the known universe" is a step towards moving away from this. If they intended / supported coalitions and mass blocs like this and renting they would implement these mechanics as features in my opinion



I do not need to make billions of isk a week to enjoy the game and this is not personally motivated. I would rather see 0.0 conflict driven as it was before the days of capital ships than it being rental driven. I would argue that many others not part of the blocs would agree. How many posts do you see about how dead 0.0 is? How many corps and alliances result to high sec ganking because they can't get any good battles in 0.0? Look at the progression of high sec empire wars and battles vs null sec. People don't want to grind sov as it is not a popular mechanic and hasn't been. People that want to go null sec can't unless they rent or get a character in one of these blocs to play in 0.0 at least in an organized non-solo way.



That is another possibility. The point of the moon suggestion is to get rid of the isk machines that are static and that currently all you need to know are where they are and have enough cap fleet blobs to control them.



That may be true and I can agree with that. However sometimes it takes game mechanic changes to spur this change of mentality. Look at how much the Siphons stirred up excitement that smaller organizations could strike at some of these larger alliances that aren't monitoring their towers. However instead the mechanic was left to where you could do a simple reaction of gases in which the siphon would get the majority of the finished product rather than the dysprosium or other value R64/R32. It was a feature that had potential but CCP did not follow through with the intent of this feature and have not announced plans for Tech II's or faction siphons that can choose their targeted material. In my opinion it is because it would upset the status quo too much and anger the veterans that have these moons.



Exactly. It adds an element that is more challenging to manage and shifts logistics and players. It changes. Controlling 4-5 regions full of towers just to control every moon not only is very expensive and cuts into the coffers but also interferes with renters when they can't anchor a POS at a moon to operate in 0.0 because their landlord needs every moon available in order to not miss where the moon goo is spawned / seeded



Again that is the point. A large organization that is responsible for 1000's of moons this is very challenging. Thus encouraging smaller mobile alliances to control a constellation or two with 300-500 members is more manageable. It spreads the isk out more in which smaller entities when they get lucky get a dysprosium moon can afford to field more ships in which results in more battles with neighboring entities.

Launch Operation: Overlord at High Sec

Take it, its there for the plucking

This is all that needs to be done

Correct Lets take a look at some numbers for 1 sov system and 1 dysprosium moon for 30 days:

_______________________________________
Expenses:

Fueling (sov bonus applied - non faction)
Fuel Blocks - 390m (rounded up)

Infrastructure
TCU - 180m
IHUB with lets say a cyno suppression - 600m

Logistics
Perhaps we use Blackfrog - 200m

Total Expenses 1.37bn

Revenue:

Dysprosium (removing 2k units for siphon speculation) - 4.13bn

Profit - 2.76bn

______________________________________

While the dysprosim is sold on the open market there are lower margins for the industrialists to buy.. react.. build the T2 components.. build the T2 ships.

If moons had limited resources that respawned it would naturally spread out the most valuable of assets randomly throughout the eve universe taking away these isk machines.